Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)'s office has vehemently denied serious allegations published by The American Conservative magazine on Tuesday, in which FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds names the Congresswoman as having participated in a lesbian affair with a Turkish agent, and being secretly video-taped for possible blackmail purposes while doing so.

Schakowsky's communications director, Trevor Kincaid, sent us a formal response to the allegations about her, as published as part of the AmCon cover story out today. In the response, Kincaid describes the claims made about the Congresswoman in the interview by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi, as a "hit piece" and a "complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by 'birthers' that President Obama is not an American citizen."

The Congresswoman's office also disputed a number of details in Edmonds' account by offering information they believe rebuts the claims made in the article. They further charge that "A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story."

Edmonds has responded with specific points in her own rebuttal to the Schakowsky response, and has included a number of direct questions for the Congresswoman in return. She also states that she is "willing to take [a] public polygraph ... on these points if she accepts doing the same." The BRAD BLOG has shared that rebuttal with Kincaid, and the office has responded to that as well, though they failed to directly answer the questions posed by Edmonds, or accept the challenge to a polygraph test.

The interviewer Giraldi has also responded to several shots taken at AmCon in the original Schakowsky response, in which Kincaid writes that the magazine's "goal was not apparently good journalism, but to fabricate one more story line for the right wing smear machine and conspiracy theorists everywhere."

The complete responses, from everyone, all follow below, along with context and additional background...

THE BACKGROUND

After receiving an advanced look over the weekend at Giraldi's AmCon interview with Edmonds, The BRAD BLOG reported yesterday on a number of details in the "explosive" story. The former FBI counterintelligence translator, who had previously been twice-gagged by the Bush Administration's invocation of the "State Secrets Privilege," described blackmail and bribery, by Turkish operatives, of current and former members of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats as named and detailed here) and a number of former high-ranking State and Defense Department officials from the Bush Administration.

The charges, based on conversations said to have been overheard while translating wiretaps at the FBI, also include the theft of nuclear weapons technology, and their sale to Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, and perhaps even al-Qaeda.

As Giraldi notes in the AmCon article, "No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files." In fact, last year, UK's Sunday Times offered some corroboration for a number of the most serious allegations in a front-page series on the case (see here, here and here), as based on material gathered from former FBI agents. "If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it," Edmonds conceded to Giraldi in the interview.

Previously, during a sworn deposition (transcript and video here) given in early August in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case pending before the Ohio Election Commission, Edmonds had identified by name, for the first time on the public record, the elected and appointed officials she alleges committed crimes of treason. She withheld Schakowsky's name, however, because she had said she didn't "know if she did anything illegal" following the alleged intimate relationship with the Turkish operative.

In the AmCon piece today, she finally names the Congresswoman on the record, while re-iterating that she did not know "if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman." She also added that the operatives "needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois."

As we noted yesterday, Creamer was indicted on 16 counts of bank fraud in 2004. In 2005 he pleaded guilty to one count and was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months of house arrest, before being released from the federal penitentiary in 2006.

Schakowsky currently serves as a member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where she chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

THE ALLEGATIONS

In her 8/8/09 deposition [PDF] in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case --- in which she was allowed to speak openly and on record for the first time, as the Obama Administration chose not to invoke the so-called "State Secrets Privilege" --- Edmonds described the "hooking" process used by the Turkish targets wiretapped in the FBI counterintelligence operation on which she was working. (Note: Edmonds' sometimes broken English is taken verbatim from the deposition transcript.)

[O]ne of the things that we was taught in the FBI --- everyone was taught in the counterintelligence --- that the target U.S. persons, whether they are in Congress or executive branch or whatever, first go by foreign entities to what they refer to as hooking period, and it was very common; it's a very common way of trying to find vulnerability, and that is sexual, financial, any other kinds of greeds, and it was --- it was done a lot, was being done a lot, and in some cases certain people from Pentagon would send a list of individuals with access to sensitive data, whether weapons technology or nuclear technology, and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues, and the State Department, high level State Department person would provide it to these foreign operatives, and those foreign operatives then would go and hook those Pentagon people, whether they were at RAND or some other Air Force base.

And then the hooking period would take some times. Sometimes it takes months, sometimes one year. They would ask for small favor, but eventually after they reviewed the targets that the U.S. person --- some small favor, then they would go blackmail and that person would give them everything, nuclear related information, weapons related information. It always worked for them. So it was not always money.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

In her 8/8/09 deposition [PDF] in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case, Edmonds discussed the same details, although she did not identify Schakowsky by name at the time:

[T]his particular Congresswoman --- the Turkish --- these Turkish organizations and operatives, if they can't do it by money, they do by blackmail. So they collect information on sexual lives and other information like that, and with this particular Congresswoman, it being 2000 until I left, they --- this individual, this Congresswoman's married with children, grown children, but she is bisexual.

So they have sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agents work for Turkish government, and have sexual relationship with this Congresswoman in her townhouse actually in this area, and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this Congressional woman's house was bugged. So they have all that documented to be used for certain things that they wanted to request when I left. So I don't know whether she --- that Congresswoman complied and gave. That's why I couldn't use her name because I don't --- I meant her face because I don't know if she did anything illegal afterwards.

But she was --- there are things; information was being collected for blackmail purposes, and her lesbian relationship, and they, the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those. I left. I was terminated.

Edmonds was terminated after reporting to superiors about a co-worker in the translation department who, she said, was actually a member of one of the suspect Turkish organizations being targeted by the FBI. Many of her allegations on those points were later found by the DoJ Inspector General, according to a declassified version of his report, to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

SCHAKOWSKY'S RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS

Here is the complete, formal response from Schakowsky's office to the Giraldi/Edmonds interview in AmCon, as sent today to The BRAD BLOG by Schakowsky's Communications Director, Trevor Kincaid [emphasis in original]:

"The American Conservative's most recent hit piece against Congresswoman Schakowsky is complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by "birthers" that President Obama is not an American citizen. The source of this story subscribes to the bizarre conspiracy theory that elements of the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story.

It would be just as accurate to say the Congresswoman was kidnapped by little green men and carried in a space ship to the planet Xenon.

From the start, the fantasy is riddled with factual errors. It claims that an "intimate" relationship between a fictional female Turkish spy and the congresswoman began at the funeral of the congresswoman's mother after 2000, however, Rep. Schakowsky's mother died thirteen years earlier in 1987.

Furthermore, it is alleged that the "relationship" occurred in the congresswoman's bugged town house even though she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life. Congresswoman Schakowsky shares a small apartment with her husband in a busy Washington, DC apartment building and owns a single-family home in Illinois.

In fact not one of the events in this fantastic tale ever took place.

Had The American Conservative, (which was founded by Pat Buchanan) adhered to normal journalistic standards it would have fact checked the story and contacted our office. Its goal was not apparently good journalism, but to fabricate one more story line for the right wing smear machine and conspiracy theorists everywhere."

We should note that The BRAD BLOG held back our own preview of the AmCon story for a full day, while hoping to receive comment from Schakowsky's office to run along with it. Several emails and phone calls to Kincaid's cell phone went unanswered over the weekend before we finally heard from him today, after we had already filed yesterday's report and after AmCon had published their cover story interview. Kincaid explained that he hadn't received our queries over the weekend, perhaps due to cell phone problems.

Today he has been very responsive, as we've tried to go back and forth between his office and Edmonds and Giraldi and back again --- and back yet again --- in hopes of getting everyone's full responses on the record.

GIRALDI RESPONDS TO SCHAKOWSKY'S RESPONSE

We'll run Giraldi's response to Schakowsky first, since it's shorter than Edmonds' and he defers to her on several of the fact issues which Edmonds responds to on her own in a moment.

The BRAD BLOG has contacted the American Conservative editors to request a response from them directly, late today, but we have not yet received one. We'll update this item when and if we do. In the meantime, here is Giraldi's response to the statement from Kincaid:

We have already heard from the congresswoman's office and will probably let her rebut "factual errors" but will not get into a series of exchanges with her, though that is a decision that the magazine will make, not me. It was an interview not an article and while we made a clear case that we consider Sibel credible we were not able to factcheck all the names and issues she presented us with though we did check dates and other easily verifiable material. I am not even sure how one would check a death date in the state of Illinois for someone whose maiden name one does not know and as for the townhouse, property records have to be searched in a local court house, as I recall. I cannot address the reliability of the information being provided by the congresswoman and would not even want to attempt to do so.

EDMONDS RESPONDS TO SCHAKOWSKY'S RESPONSE

In her response, the former FBI translator speaks to the fact issues raised in the rebuttal from Schakowsky's office, and includes some direct questions of her own to the Congresswoman in return [emphasis in original]:

Here is my 'on the record' response:

I am, and have been, reporting intercepted communication of targeted operatives; more or less verbatim.

1) This particular operation(s) was based in IL; not DC.
The timeline covered 1996-2002 (January).
The targeted townhouse in question was in IL. The operatives discussed their plans to bug the townhouse in detail. Is this a townhouse she owned/owns? I don't know. Did it belong to the female operative? I don't know. Did the set up take place? Yes; confirmed by the FBI surveillance team; Chicago-Field Office.

2) The female operative in question was to accompany Mrs. Schakowsky to the funeral for 'the mother' and stay with her afterwards.

3) What the targets wanted from Mrs. Schakowsky had to do with their operations in IL. Her husband's role was important in that operation.

Now, to make it fair ask Mrs. Schakowsky the following:

1- Do you deny having sexual relationship with a Turkish woman between late 1990s and early 2001?

2- Do you deny having communication with her (Turkish operative) 'front' office in Chicago, TACA [Turkish American Cultural Alliance]? (Because the records would prove direct communication).

And finally, most importantly: if she denies: I am willing to take public polygraph (independent polygraph service) on these points if she accepts doing the same.

"As with all fairytales, Ms. Edmonds' fantasy about Congresswoman Schakowsky was easily dismantled by introducing irrefutable facts. It is clear from reading her response that Ms. Edmonds has decided to change her story rather than admitting her charade had been revealed. It is unfortunate. Aside from the point that Congresswoman Schakowsky is married, not a single aspect of Ms. Edmonds' original story was true. The claims about Congresswoman Schakowsky do not have a leg to stand on and have been shown to be the stuff of science-fiction and absurd conspiracy theory; absent of any factual basis. Period."

When we pressed Kincaid to see if he wished to answer the specific points Edmonds directed at the Congresswoman at the end of her response, he said he believed his response "does address her questions and all her allegations. Showing them all to be untrue."

When we suggested --- several times --- that the response didn't actually answer the questions posed directly, he replied in kind: "The bottom line is that Ms Edmonds has no credibility because she is apparently willing to make things up and pretend that they are true. We have presented the facts and she changed her story as a result."

Edmonds declined to respond to Kincaid's last reply late tonight, saying instead that she would "have more on that later" as well as re-iterating that her statements were based on "verbatim communication intercepted, recorded, filed, and 'shared.'" [Update: Edmonds has now issued her formal response to Schakowsky. See UPDATE at end of article for details, link.]

We've got a number of notes and various points of fact that we've been collecting throughout the day in regard to all of this. Moreover, a number of open questions remain unresolved in trying to make sense of the different sides of the story, but we wanted to get as much comment as possible, from all sides, onto the public record as soon as possible.

As we're able to gather more information, more comment from those involved, additional corroboration and/or exculpatory evidence in hopes of putting more pieces together on both the allegations about Schakowsky and the many, much broader allegations about many other officials, as now being made on the record by Edmonds, we will, of course, share as much as possible here. We hope other media outlets will consider doing the same.

UPDATE 9/24/09, 7:01pm PT: Edmonds has now issued a former reply, in the form of a letter to Schakowsky, offering additional details and inviting her to join the investigation in her role as Chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Intelligence Oversight and Investigation. The complete response is now posted here...

Can we take a look at Schakowsky's day planner from 2000-2002? Did she go to any funerals? If so, whose? Just curious, might be a place to look for some kind of corroboration.

Whether the townhouse was hers or someone else's really isn't important - in fact, wouldn't it have been easier to bug a townhouse that didn't belong to Schakowsky, one that belonged to...oh, I don't know...the Turkish Lobby??

You know, I have had a lot of respect for Schakowsky as a liberal force in the House. I'd continue to have respect if she just came out and told the truth (that is, if the truth is other than Kincaid is claiming). Politics is a shit game, and unfortunately a relatively good one got covered in some.

Larisa Alexandrovna had a post up at her blog at-largely recently in which she named Jan Schackowsky as the 'mystery Congresswoman' Sibel had alluded to, well before this article was out. She claimed that she'd heard this rumor through other sources previously. The blog isn't searchable and Google isn't helping, so I can't find the relevant link, but it was within the past month or two.

Well, Schakowsky's reponse is certainly predictable. But isn't it nice to at least get ANY kind of public acknowledgment from ANYone involved? Would like to see same from Hastert, Grossman, et al. Let the smearing begin!

Also, check out the WaPo story this morning on Obama's loosening of the state secrets privilege:

A google news search still does not bring up the Giraldi interview @ American Conservatrive. Interesting.

At TWN, a long time poster I have always suspected of being a hasbarist is trying to shove this story into the realm of the "birthers" and "truthers", much like Kincaid is attempting.

I sincerely hope that care is taken, while trying to get this story into the public eye, to avoid attaching it to other issues that may aid those such as Kincaid in shoving it into the fringe world of the tinfoil hat crowd.

don't get me started. truthers and birthers are diametric opposites. ok too late, you got me started.
"truthers" are concerned with factual scientific evidence on top of a mountain of circumstantial evidence in a matter where 3000 innocents died and an economically crippling GWOT was launched.

"birthers" are concerned with the relatively trivial matter as to where the President was born. nobody died, no economies were ruined and in fact if Ahnold were in the running, the birthers would be the first pushing an amendment to allow non-native citizens to become President.

The Schakowski piece is only a small part of this, but since she has responded, we should let it be known to her:

Edmonds was very careful in what she said about you, even if she got some of the satellite facts wrong. Edmonds made it clear she did not know if you had ever done anything illegal or even been approached as a subject of blackmail. You have now repaid that care with vitriol, name calling and a blanket denial. Your choice, so now you deserve whatever political consequences come if you are blowing smoke.

Rep. Schakowski, we wish you understood that every decent person will defend you and your right to fuck whoever you want, man, woman or other adult human, even if you're married, provided [i]you yourself[/i] don't treat it as a point of vulnerability. If you feel the need to cover it up for political reasons, we're even ok with THAT under certain circumstances. But when you, by your own carelessness, expose yourself to blackmail and choose to try to defend your secrecy at the expense of constituent service, this is when we leave your side.

Under these circumstances, your progressive standing rapidly diminishes in importance. You becomes just another politician who puts her personal gain ahead of public service, which is a shame.

As it stands, you are way off base in your characterization of Edmonds, and apparently you don't care if you do damage to Edmonds' credibility on other matters. Parts of this story have been out for YEARS, and not a single part of it has ever been shown to be false. It was apparently good enough for publication in places like Vanity Fair and the mainstream UK press.

Your response looks bad, characterized by direct avoidance of the most salient aspects of the story. Not what one would expect from a truly innocent person.

Here's the giveaway for me that Schakowski is full of shit: Edmonds is merely repeating WHAT SHE SAYS SHE WAS EXPOSED TO in the course of her employment at FBI. Why isn't Schakowski expressing curiosity about the source material? How on earth could Schakowski (legally!) be in a position to know this is all made up, and that Edmonds is making it up?

It is interesting that the only public response comes from a member of Congress whom Edmonds has not accused of espionage or other illegal forms of corruption.

Throughout her deposition, Edmonds declined to name Schakowsky because Edmonds said she did not know whether the Turkish lobby scheme to blackmail Schakowsky for the lesbian tryst succeeded.

Edmonds told Giraldi that Schakowsky was "added to the list" in 2000. Her response to Schakowsky's denial reflects that Edmonds relied entirely on an FBI intercepts that covered the period 1996 to 2002.

The intercept said the Turkish female operative was to accompany Schakowsky to the funeral of "the mother."

Schakowsky says "her mother" died in 1987. There is no reason to question the accuracy of Schakowsky's statement as to when her mother died.

But this also does not necessarily call into question Sibel's candor. What it does call into question is the accuracy of Sibel's interpretation of the words, "the mother," in the FBI intercept or perhaps the accuracy of the intercept itself.

Do FBI intercepts contain the verbatim words of the intercepted conversations or a summation by an FBI employee of the gist of conversations? If the later, then there's always the risk of error by the FBI employee preparing the summation, especially if that summary pertains to a conversation in a foreign language. (There are many instances in which a word in another language does not literally translate into English).

Finally, while the lesbian tryst makes for the most salacious allegation, we should not lose sight of the far more serious questions involving not just corruption at the highest levels of government but espionage and treason.

Those questions are the real "story" which the entire media should be covering and which the Department of Justice should be investigating.

if Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) does NOT file a libel suit against Sibel Edmonds, then everyone can assume that Sibel Edmonds is telling the truth.

I wouldn't agree. It's very difficult for public figures to sue for libel, because they are then opened up to ALL sorts of stuff via discovery. It's also a very high bar to prove that a) the defendant was lying and b) defendant knew he/she was lying, but printed it anyway (malice).

Do FBI intercepts contain the verbatim words of the intercepted conversations or a summation by an FBI employee of the gist of conversations? If the later, then there's always the risk of error by the FBI employee preparing the summation, especially if that summary pertains to a conversation in a foreign language. (There are many instances in which a word in another language does not literally translate into English).

Interesting that you should mention that point. Edmonds' original allegations against her co-worker (Melek Can Dickerson) in the Turkish translation division --- who was apparently a member of one of the orgs being targeted by the FBI --- included the charge that she had been mistranslating and/or mis-summarizing documents to that end.

From my understanding of the translation/language specialist divisions, the work of the translator on foreign-language wiretaps is *incredibly* important, as the field agents, who often don't speak the language, rely on the translators to tell them what is important and what isn't, amongst a mountain of wiretap tapes.

In the case of Edmonds' tapes, stretching from 1996 to 2002 in all, she had been tasked, as I recall, to go back through those years of tapes which had already been reviewed, in some measure, to make sure they had been properly reviewed. Apparently there were fears that they hadn't, or that important information had been missed.

She has told me (going from memory here, without checking old old notes) that Dickerson had been changing/re-writing summaries. Noting that some tapes were not important, after they had previously been found to be important, etc.

So, yes, the translators and their summaries and translations are a VERY important key in the counterintelligence division's investigations.

What possible reason would Edmonds have to fabricate stories about powerful people,thereby making herself a target of ridicule-and worse?

If she were manufacturing,why not come out with subsequent accusations,about othere figures,in the public realm. Has she continued to make statements about others beyond the time frame indicated in her depostion? I don't think so.

Here is an exceptional article about Blunt and his tobacco lobbyist wife,Abigail Pearlman.

And quite coincidenatlly, Todd Boulanger ,mentioned in the article as one of Abramoff's henchman,is testifying today,in the trial of another Abramoff associate,Kevin Ring.

Seems to be a media blackout on that ,too.Ring was Ashcroft's aide,yet its another elephant in the GOP living room...yet the media is blowing smoke rings to obscure the testimony. No doubt they are smoking Turkish tobacco to do it with.

Blunt's "Strict" Ethics Policy Is A Sham | Fired Up! MissouriFeb 1, 2006 ... According to Jessica Boulanger, who is married to Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd ... An Altria backed group, the American Turkish Council, ...www.firedupmissouri.com/blunt_ethics - Cached - Similar

National Journal Online --- Under The Influence --- News You Can Use ...We wanted to alert our readers to our ongoing coverage of the trial of Kevin Ring, a former lobbyist who used to work for the now imprisoned former lobbyist ...
undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/.../news-you-can-use-ring-trial.php - 23 hours ago - Similar

Unheard No More!: Kevin Ring's Trial Has Begun: You won't hear ...Friday the Kevin Ring trial began in Washington, DC. I have a particular distaste for this former lobbyist who worked directly under Jack Abramoff ...
unheardnomore.blogspot.com/.../kevin-rings-trial-has-begun-you-wont.html - Cached - Similar

Correction: Ring was not an aide TO Ashcroft. David Ayres,who WAS, was called to the stand in the Ring trial last week and invoked his fifth amendment rights.

Schakowsky smeared Sibel with false allegations that she believes '9/11 conspiracy theories'; this is not true; Sibel has testified to incidents she witnessed pointing to foreknowledge, obstruction and cover up by certain people, but has not promoted any 'theories'. Schakowsky did not specifically deny the allegation of an affair, instead claiming the info about the townhouse and 'mother' is incorrect, which are trivial matters. I couldn't care less if she cheated or is bisexual; i want to know if she was blackmailed, and what she did if she complied with demands.

Schakowsky *may* not have done anything- what's going on with the members of Congress and DOS/DOD officials named in Sibel's under oath deposition- Sibel has alleged acts amounting to treason in some cases; involvement in espionage, blackmail, bribery, money laundering and trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets. These allegations have been public since since Aug 25- and now in a cover story for Am Con. These people need to be pressed for answers.

If the Congresswoman and/or Ms. Edmonds decide to take a polygraph test, it should only be what polygraph examiners refer to as a "single-issue exam", the most accurate of which is the Utah Zone of Comparison Test. Any other kind of polygraph test will lack sufficient accuracy.

Kudos to bradblog (1st I'd ever heard of it) in helping to publicize Sibel's very important revelations. I tried to get CommonDreams.org to pick-up the amcons cover story and have used its comment spaces to spread the word. I also posted a link to it at Juan Cole's Informed Comment, which he allowed into his comments section, as well as at theoildrum.com, where a few posted replys to it, but not in the volume it ought to generate IF people were to click the link and read.

Saying that Edmonds's is a part of the "right wing smear machine" fails entirely as most of those named by her are Republicans, which is why BushCo gagged her in the first place. The problem is basic as most folks in our culture would respond to such allegations with knee jerk lie(s) of some sort. For me, those named Republicans are the primary criminals named by Edmonds, but there's nothing said by Schakowsky's mouthpiece about them or the high crimes that are alleged. It seems to me that Kincaid's attempt to paint Edmonds as non-credible is an effort to "front-run" for the accused Republicans. IOW, since there is NO mention of Schakowsky being connected in any way with 9/11 by Edmonds, then WHY is she accused of being a "truther" and "consipacy-theory" member? This informs me that Schakowsky DOES have something to hide, but not related to what Edmonds's revealed.

Ms. Schakowsky is a victim of the Turkish government, not a crook. She should be treated by us all in that vein.

She will never answer the questions about the Turkish agent, except under compulsion and oath. She will merely parrot the Turkish lobby attack that Sibel is nuts, or make some other non-specific remark.

I am guessing that her husband is the key to all of this. When did his mother, or the first husband's mother die?

It seems to me that the fact that the bush administration had Edmonds gagged under the State Secrets Privilege indicates that there is validity to her claims. Also, I recall reading a UK article (year or more ago) about FBI agents corroborating Sibel's allegations.

And Schakowsky's response to Edmonds is reminiscent of the bush admins methods of marginalizing anyone that questioned or disagreed with them in any way--they're crazy conspiracy theorists, birthers, unAmerican, etc. Schakowsky's very defensive response makes it seem as though she's hiding something, particularly since Sibel hasn't accused her of doing anything illegal.

One last comment, kind of a general one: for YEARS, I could never understand why "GAG" even exists! It's unAmerican to "gag" someone, in my opinion! That is "big government" at it's BIGGEST! "Gagging" someone should NOT exist! How dare the government "gag" someone in the first place...or EVER! That really frosts me! "Gagging" someone!

Whenever I hear someone was "gagged" by the government, I automatically assume they're telling the truth, why else would they be "gagged"? For lying? That wouldn't make any sense!

I'm reminded of a Bloom County cartoon in which Binkley is gagging while reading the newspaper. Milo comes from behind to give him the Heimlich, saying "Spit it out!" At which point Binkley barfs up the following headlines:

"The Nicaraguan rebels are the moral equivalant of our founding fathers! Star Wars will work! The president doesn't use grecian formula 44!"

The interview between Scott Horton of antiwar.com and Giraldi and Lauria, http://dissentradio.com/...09_22_giraldi_lauria.mp3 is an essential listen as it directly addresses the question of Edmonds's veracity. They also raise a host of other questions and dilemmas. Like Lauria's series of articles published by the London Times that were NEVER picked up by the US Propaganda System, the current revelations are quite capable of suffering a similar fate. We must not let that happen.

Brad, Giraldi, Sibel thanks....."no one is above the law" we want to believe.

Schakowsky is going to try her best to paint Sibel as a "crazy" Keep offering to take a "public polygraph" if Schakowsky is willing to do the same.

Silence in the MSM about this complete Silence.

What are the issues that the MSM has ignored recently, Carl Camerons four part report on Amdocs, Infosys and datamining, the 9 time delayed Aipac trial that was finally dismissed, the recent Goldstone UN report.

I guess they figure we need to see the same clip of Joe "you lie" Wilson at least a hundred times.

"The mother" could refer to her mother-in-law or it could have been code or a nickname for someone in Schakowsky's circle. And if Sibel misspoke regarding the houses whereabouts (while trying to remember stuff from 8 years back) that hardly casts doubt on the rest of the details.

24 April is when the Armenian Genocide is celebrated remembering 24 April 1915 Maybe this is what was translated as "funeral."

On 18 April 2000 John Marshall Law School, Chicago, IL had a lecture program on Recognizing, Preventing Genocide Crimes - ... the massacres and exile of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire,...www.jmls.edu/intheloop/p...ous/2000/0416/index.html
Rep Schakowsky is mentioned on this web page in an other article about an ABA Washington D.C. event on April 14, 2000.

The minions of the Congresswoman are warm-air-blowing artists. Lets review:

The bottom line is that Ms Edmonds has no credibility because she is apparently willing to make things up and pretend that they are true.

* "Has no credibility" because of the say-so of some minion? How does he support that claim?

* Edmonds "is willing to make things up and pretend they are true"? Is that not rather a reversal of the facts, namely that the congresswoman and her minions are denying facts and pretending they are not true?

We have presented the facts and she changed her story as a result.

Having followed the story, it appears to me that things are the other way around, namely that Edmonds presented facts and they dissembled and presented a lot of hot air and angry shrieking.

"and this information would include all their sexual preference, how much they owed on their homes, if they have gambling issues,"
How many etceteras might one add to that short list?

And considering the fact we put all our lawmakers together in one city, it makes it so easy for either K-Street or foreign agents to access them all in one spot.

I say lets bring em' all home, make them live with their constituents and do their debating and voting online.

The horse and buggy technology during the writing of the Federalist Papers is obsolete, to say the least, we don't drive horse-drawn carriages any more, so why do we send our lawmakers to one easily accessible spot as if that were still the case?

"VIRTUAL CONGRESS!" should be the battle cry of the new Netroots. Our lawmakers are too accessible to these dangerous influences of intrigue and international espionage when they are all clustered together in one place.

Get them out of DC and back home with their constituents! Let them debate and vote online, PUBLICLY!

The congresswoman's toadie's response is heavy on the ad hominem and light on meaningful rebuttal and facts. Methinks they dost protest too much. Did Schakowsky succumb to blackmail and commit treason?
As for the silence that's met this story, not only from the corporate media but from bloggers and journalists on the left--shame on them. It may be outside the portfolio for some, but others have no excuse; they've become part of the problem.
Thanks, Brad, for keeping after this story, because it goes to the root of the people's problems with government in the US. Thanks also to Sibel for her bravery and integrity. If the Medal of Freedom hadn't been so corrupted by W, I'd say Sibel deserves one.

Thanks, POA. I'll try to jump over there. Happy to appear any time on Riz's show. Was on it last October, video here, so hopefully they still no how to reach me.

Unfortunately, I've got to spend the next hour or two finishing up today's Green News Report, so don't know if I'll have time to go post over at TWN. You are free to pass this on.

I should add, btw, Steve Clemons and the Washington Note were mentioned by Joe Lauria (who co-wrote the 3-part UK Sunday Times expose on Sibel's story, read 'em all here, here and here) during his interview with Scott Horton Tuesday.

Apparently Steve was offered the exclusive on the Edmonds deposition before we had it even posted here at The BRAD BLOG. For whatever reason, and I'm sure there plenty of good ones, Steve seems to have declined, according to Lauria in the interview, despite the very hot, exclusve on-ramp he would have had to this story.

Anyway, I'll do my best to jump over to TWN, but I likely won't be able to do so for at least an hour. Pass on whatever of this note that you like until then. And, as mentioned, Riz's AJ folks should have my phone number already if I can be of service over there.

CORRECTION 10/7/09: Lauria contacted me to mention it wasn't he, but Phil Giraldi, who was also interviewed at the same time by Scott Horton, who mentioned the lack of interest in the story by Steve Clemons and The Washington Note. The mention is just after the 10 min mark in Horton's interview here My apologies to Lauria for misindentifying him in the above comment.

I took the liberty of posting your response at TWN on the thread I referred you to.

Should you choose to post over there, be forewarned, the CAPTCHA feature is a nightmare, and if you don't know your way through it, its impossible to get a post up. Bear in mind, his spamblocker will only accept two active links at a time.

Heres how I get through....

After your first attempt you will invariably get a box that says you copied the text of the captcha incorrectly. At that point, hit your back button to retrieve your post. Copy it onto your mouse. Open TWN in a fresh window, find the thread, paste your comment, and try again. That technique usually gets your post through. If you can't navigate it, feel free to email me your comment or comments, and I will post them for you.

Kent, Bob Creamer's mother lived in Louisiana and passed away there in 2007, so she cannot be the explanation. The other possibility is that Jan might have gone to the funeral of her first husband's mother.

most nights at my house we watch keith o and racheal...we know it is not real journalism but it is the closest thing to it on the msm

during commercials hubby will turn and ask,"so whats the real news today?"(cause he knows i read bradblog)

tuesday night when he asked, i was happy to report to him on the american conservatives article about sibels interview

he summed it up this way,so hassert took millions in bribes from a foriegn goverment,sold them nuclear secrets,that they passed on to unstable goverments and then retires from congress to work for a lobbying firm for the same foreign goverment and no one is gonna do anything about it?

we fixate on hassert because we are from illinois

then we talked about sibel actually getting to testify (that obamas justice didnt stop her)and ya know,it made hubby happy,that maybe there was a chance that quietly by letting this bad stuff come out lil by lil maybe something will change

today i was looking in old newspapers,last summers (for something unrelated)and found a story about 3 local state senators (one being bill brady)going to turkey of all places

bill brady intends to run for govenor in illinois,he lives in bloomington

the city of bloomington uses bbvs "middleman" software to report votes

the county clerk,who went to same conference and did NOT buy the middleman software(who was then charged with felony theft over 300 stamps she used for some charity mailing)just announced she would run again and is going to "automate" the office(i see the "middleman" reporting in mclean countys future)

In response to a previous comment about Schakowsky not being accused of anything illegal, my ex-CIA friend says this....

"When we are talking about blackmailing Schakowsky it is relevant. She had a duty to report that she was being pressured to disclose classified information. If she in fact failed to report, she is in trouble. Such is the duty when you are a leader."

Am I alone here in thinking that Schakowsky's name should not have been disclosed? Give the woman her privacy, for crying out loud, especially since there is no evidence that she broke the law. Why subject her to public humiliation and possibly ruin her career?

The real issues are bribery, disclosure of classified information to foreign powers, and the relentless manipulation about Iraq before 911. The Schakowsky business is simply gossip.

Bad stuff going on around this revelation. First, Schakowsky's stepson dies last week while snorkeling in Mexico where family is 'on vacation' (from the press?) Then in today's news NY congresswoman Maloney (champion of Edmonds and instrumental in getting 911 dust death case changed to homicide)husband dies 'unexpectedly' in sleep while on Himalaya mountain climb. (he was also some kind of Goldman Sachs bigwig...maybe two for a nickle here. Seems like things are getting creepier and creepier, maybe nite of the long knives???

Certain communications channels intercepted by the FBI were known by Turkish agents to be tapped, so they fed garbage in hoping it would come out in some fashion.

They wanted to damage Jan Schakowsky's reputation; she was not capable of being bribed or compromised.

Schakowsky had long been friendly with the Armenian community, and had been an irritant to the Turks. Even before 2000 Schakowsky had made it clear she would push for visibility of the Armenian genocide. She is on record in 2003, 2007 and 2009 as well pushing for official House Resolutions, not exactly showing signs of being blackmailed.

Edmonds intercepted communications were a lie, a ruse, used in a set up by Turkish intel back years ago to stop what they then saw as threat. They fed this bogus information into the hopper, thinking it would quickly get out. I doubt they expected it to take 8 years to get out.

Sibel didn't do anything 'wrong' in reporting the intercept; what Sibel couldn't know is that some of these channels were being used by Turkish agents who knew were being monitored.

Sibel's original feeling about not making public the name was the right one; it's a shame she felt it necessary to decide otherwise eventually.